I don't understand it either. I got by undergrad at a top 10 (or top 5 depending on the rankings) CS program, and while it whipped my ass I loved it. The freedom to think/learn/and dig into problems, late nights figuring out projects, scheduling in time for binge drinking that crazy semester I took 4 senior level CS courses and pulled a 3.5, I look back on all of it quite happily for its part in making me who I am.
I do still have quite a few friends who have trouble divorcing themselves from how tough it was, some of the "unfairness", and having to do learn things they didn't (and and most cases I assume still don't) see the point in. Perhaps the same sentiments are more common/intense at universities and programs within them that are middling quality?
That's because you had (presumably) well-thought out rigor.
Over in the humanities, the faculty gave up on / let themselves get chased off the Great Books about two decades ago, what they're left with isn't much fun. The social sciences mustn't come up with the Wrong Answers, or else. And the whole notion of merit and quality is sort of suspect in those disciplines, so the joys and terrors of seeking excellence are heavily obscured.
So, yeah, those programs are a lot less exciting than they should be.
FWIW, I went to a liberal arts university and our Great Books course was the best I took. Fall of your freshman year, two professors, ~100 pages written over the semester. 11 works from the Iliad to Dante (more or less one per week).
Yes, I got my butt kicked by it but every course after that was comparatively easier because of the rigor of that course and the mindset it left me with.
Comments
I don't understand it either. I got by undergrad at a top 10 (or top 5 depending on the rankings) CS program, and while it whipped my ass I loved it. The freedom to think/learn/and dig into problems, late nights figuring out projects, scheduling in time for binge drinking that crazy semester I took 4 senior level CS courses and pulled a 3.5, I look back on all of it quite happily for its part in making me who I am.
I do still have quite a few friends who have trouble divorcing themselves from how tough it was, some of the "unfairness", and having to do learn things they didn't (and and most cases I assume still don't) see the point in. Perhaps the same sentiments are more common/intense at universities and programs within them that are middling quality?
That's because you had (presumably) well-thought out rigor.
Over in the humanities, the faculty gave up on / let themselves get chased off the Great Books about two decades ago, what they're left with isn't much fun. The social sciences mustn't come up with the Wrong Answers, or else. And the whole notion of merit and quality is sort of suspect in those disciplines, so the joys and terrors of seeking excellence are heavily obscured.
So, yeah, those programs are a lot less exciting than they should be.
FWIW, I went to a liberal arts university and our Great Books course was the best I took. Fall of your freshman year, two professors, ~100 pages written over the semester. 11 works from the Iliad to Dante (more or less one per week).
Yes, I got my butt kicked by it but every course after that was comparatively easier because of the rigor of that course and the mindset it left me with.